It will be interesting to see who Obama nominates, but I’m going to be more interested to see how this process works in a filibuster proof Senate. I’m hoping it does not really matter and he makes a selection that is ground more in the Constitution than any type of ideology.

OMG, Hitchhiker's Guide. It's been 20 years since I read that book. That's why I didn't get the reference at first. Sorry.

Anyway, I'd take "cynical" over "gullible" any day. Experience has taught me that much, at least. Not that I'm saying you're gullible, mind you.

OT: Do you really believe that whomever the president nominates isn't going to be so far to the left that his/her pee is pink? I would be extremely surprised if that weren't the case, but I'll admit that I don't know a whole hell of a lot about President Obama.

"They should rename the team to the Washington Government Sucks. Put Obama on the helmet. Line the entire walls of the stadium with the actual text of the ACA.

Fix their home team score on the board to the debt clock, they can win every game 17,000,000,000,000 to 24. Losing team gets taxed by the IRS 100%, then droned."

OT: Do you really believe that whomever the president nominates isn't going to be so far to the left that his/her pee is pink?

I think the first thing I'm not going to do is drink the neo-con kool-aid.

If you genuinely want to have this discussion, I'll be happy to do so, however the first thing we're going to have to do is operationally define "left" and "right". The unfortunate reality is that many of the pundits on "the right" have been given free reign to establish that anyone that doesn't accept their brand of ideology is automatically "liberal". This is very much akin to establishing that anyone not living at the north pole is "south" and then calling that "fair and balanced".

2nd thought before clicking "Submit Reply": As a show of good faith, I will tell you now that I don't believe that he is going to pick someone who is liberal ideologue. However I do believe that whomever he picks, short of Ronald Reagan's animated corpse, will be painted as such by whomever needs to fill airtime on their radio/television show.

What I think to be a far more interesting question is this: what's so great about being exactly in the middle if your options are "right" and "wrong"? If abortion is truly the scourge of everything everywhere, then shouldn't you/me/everyone being routing for the pro-lifers? If opposing gay marriage is truly an affront to equal rights to all human everywhere, shouldn't we be taking up the banner too? I hear a lot of people clamoring about centrism (yourself included, with all due respect) but I fail to see why this seems like such a good idea.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qliveur

I would be extremely surprised if that weren't the case, but I'll admit that I don't know a whole hell of a lot about President Obama.

I think President Obama is a firm believer in the Constitution (he taught Constitutional law for several years). It is my opinion that he tends to pick people for jobs based on their ability rather than their ideology.

Lastly, if you are willing to admit that you do not know that much about him (an admirable admission, btw!), I guess I'm curious to from where such strong opinions stem. Wouldn't it be better to either a) find out more before jumping to conclusions or b) wait to find out what he's going to do before remarking on it? As always, I look forward to your response, sir.

To answer your last question, I'll admit that I assumed (yes, I know: bad) that that is what he would do based on the actions of his predecessors, both Democrat and Republican. It's what they've always done in an attempt to sway the Supreme Court over to their respective ideologies or to at least balance it. It's been this way since I can remember.

If you're right about the president's choice, it would be refreshing, to say the least.

"They should rename the team to the Washington Government Sucks. Put Obama on the helmet. Line the entire walls of the stadium with the actual text of the ACA.

Fix their home team score on the board to the debt clock, they can win every game 17,000,000,000,000 to 24. Losing team gets taxed by the IRS 100%, then droned."

To answer your last question, I'll admit that I assumed (yes, I know: bad) that that is what he would do based on the actions of his predecessors, both Democrat and Republican. It's what they've always done in an attempt to sway the Supreme Court over to their respective ideologies or to at least balance it. It's been this way since I can remember.

If you're right about the president's choice, it would be refreshing, to say the least.

Meh.

The guy that's leaving now (Souter) was appointed by Bush 41 (a conservative/Republican), but has consistently ruled on what's considered "the left". That's just the most relevant example.

The problem that "the right" has is that the Supreme Court is supposed to interpret the Constitution and the Constitution limits government and empowers individuals. This mix means that it's difficult to place limitation on individual rights, however that's mostly what the modern conservative agenda seeks to accomplish. Hence why I find all the fist shaking at "activist judges" to be hypocritical in the extreme